The Clean Power Plan is flexible and achievable

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) is a strong, flexible framework to help reduce power plant carbon emissions, which are the largest source of U.S. global warming emissions. It will cut those emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The plan provides a number of cost-effective compliance options for states, including using renewable energy and natural gas to replace coal-fired power, increasing energy efficiency, and bringing online nuclear plants currently under construction. It also allows states to take advantage of multi-state carbon trading systems to cut emissions, if they so choose.

The CPP is affordable (the sky is NOT falling!)

The benefits of the CPP far outweigh its costs. The EPA’s analysis shows that the Clean Power Plan’s public health and climate benefits are worth an estimated $26 billion to $45 billion per year in 2030, far more than the estimated costs of $5.1 to 8.4 billion per year in 2030. The public health benefits alone, from cutting co-pollutants such as SO2 and NOX, amount to an estimated $12 billion to $34 billion in 2030. (All figures in 2011 dollars.)

What’s more, electricity consumers stand to benefit as well. The EPA projects that Americans will save about $7 per month and more than $80 per year on their electricity bill by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan. Modest electricity bill increases of 2.4 to 2.7 percent in 2020 are quickly followed by larger decreases in 2025 and beyond as energy efficiency investments pay off.

Despite these facts, starting tomorrow, there will be a slew of court cases filed to slow down clean energy progress and delay action on climate change. The American Legislative Exchange Council even has the audacity to propose that we, as taxpayers, help to fund these misguided attacks. Most legal experts agree that ultimately these lawsuits, funded in part by fossil-fuel interests, will be thrown out. But meanwhile they are a serious drag on public resources and do a real disservice to the “can-do” spirit that our country cherishes.

Many states likely to sue EPA are on track to meet CPP

UCS analysis shows that many of the states that are planning to sue the EPA are actually already making commitments that would put them on the path to compliance. Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina are expected to sue the EPA over the Clean Power Plan despite being on track to exceed their 2022 benchmarks. In fact, South Carolina is even on track to exceed its 2030 target. Likewise, Alabama, Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, and Wisconsin are also expected to sue even though they are on track to achieve more than half of their 2022 benchmarks through committed actions.

Furthermore, state clean energy actions provide big benefits to their residents. Retiring aging, polluting coal-fired power plants, for example, would be a huge boon to public health. Many states would stand to benefit if they ramped up their investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which can save consumers money on their electricity bills, drive local economic benefits, and help diversify the state electricity mix.

Your state can be a clean energy leader

States are now empowered to make their own choices about how to cut emissions, and will have up to three years to file their compliance plans. Many states, including Virginia and Minnesota, have already begun planning and stakeholder processes to develop their compliance strategies. Renewable energy and energy efficiency should play a significant role in state compliance plans, given the myriad health and economic benefits of these cost-effective options.

With yesterday’s announcement from NOAA that 2015 is on track to be the hottest year on recordby a wide margin, there is clearly no room for delay in cutting our heat-trapping emissions. Those who stand in the way of climate action will need to think about how they will answer their children and grandchildren who will bear the brunt of climate impacts.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

Pat Brady Martin

My concern is that the CPP elevates natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” While this might make sense in states that burn mostly coal, the push for natural gas in New England via pipelines that will nearly DOUBLE the amount of natural gas flowing into New England seems like a push to support fracking and the fracked gas industry. New England generates less than 7% of it’s electricity with coal and oil combined. Meanwhile nuclear plants in New England are being shut down because they can’t compete financially with natural gas fired generation. For New England, natural gas is more of a gangplank than a bridge.

I did see that report about over-reliance, but it only showed EXISTING pipelines, not the proposed projects that will almost double the amount of natural gas flowing into New England., According to the report, New England states have almost zero risk. Also, somewhat suspiciously, the target for New Hampshire by 2030 is 771 lbs/MWh for electricity generation. That just happens to be the same number for the latest combined cycle gas generating plant. NE already generates over 50% of it’s electricity with natural gas. Are we headed for 100%? The price pressures from natural gas generation has already caused VT Yankee to close and Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant looks to be shutting down within 3 years because of cost issues. This does not bode well for lowering carbon emissions.

Pat Brady Martin

And, here’s another concern…this part highlighted in another blog,

“By 2022, the first year of the compliance period, natural gas combined
cycle (NGCC) generation is limited to a maximum of a 22 percent increase
from 2012 levels in each region. This is equivalent to the single
largest annual increase in power sector gas-fired generation since 1990,
which occurred between 2011 and 2012.”
In New Hampshire we’ve been generating about 50% of our electricity with natural gas. Is that 2012 level all gas fired generation or just NGCC? If it’s all gas fired generation, New England could conceivably move to 61%. I don’t think that would be in the best interests of diversity. Especially since our combined annual coal and oil generation is about 7%. We’d actually be increasing our fossil fuel generation capacity.

Sorry, if I’m being dense about this, but since the gas pipeline projects proposed for New England to relieve high electricity prices, would nearly triple ( 1 bcf/day currently used for electricity generation and the proposed additions equal 2.97 bcf/day) the amount of gas being proposed makes it look like the plan is to provide 100% natural gas generation, plus another 50%!!

Also, since we are part of a regional power organization with utilities no longer vertically integrated, how is permitting of power plants coordinated so that each State’s goals are met?
Thank you so much for your help understanding this!

Pat Brady Martin

I should say that in New England, we’ve been generating 50% with natural gas. New Hampshire is less, but since we’re part of a regional group and are *supposed* to have generation decoupled from transmission, I wonder how this will work?

Pat Brady Martin

I’ve been invited to speak to a class of undergraduates about energy policy and natural gas. I would really like to understand what impact the rules have on how much benefit electric ratepayers will see from subsidizing the building of fracked gas pipelines. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!